> Hi (Ed I'm answering to your post but it's not only meant WRT what you > have written),
Got it-- no problem. I'll reply to some of your points anyway. :) > this "too late" etc. discussion continually shows up every couple of > months. Is Rebol the problem? I don't think so REBOL itself may be a problem if its design decisions inhibit sufficiently broad acceptance of the language. Left idle REBOL provides little benefit-- developers and users are the true run-time engine. If a critical mass of developers is not reached, there will be fewer projects using it and fewer programs written in it, etc. Sounds like a chicken-and-egg problem. > To me the View 1.3 project is a first small step into the right direction. Yes! I hope it works well for all involved. > How much are you going to pay for this? Nothing? Will this work... I am always willing to pay RT something when there's good value, and it's within my budget. I've been a good customer, but I understand that not everyone is fortunate enough to afford taking a chance on development tools. > No, it's not the technology, it's what we do with it. ... Rebol > seems to have many unique features but we failed to use these > to create something that the markets want to have. I agree. This reminds me of a post on Gadgetopia that has stayed with me a while: "Problems No Platforms Will Fix" http://www.gadgetopia.com/2003/05/27/ProblemsNoPlatformWillFix.html >> I believe that there are marketable & revolutionary products >> in REBOL, or a REBOL-like language. > Which ones? My personal feeling is that REBOL should be used for things it's designed to do well. Gotta work with what you've got. Dialecting combined with simple networking make a powerful combination, and I think that represents fertile ground for interesting programs. In most other areas of development, other languages are on equal or better footing. >> * information retrieval & consumption >> * database interaction >> * content creation >> * games/media players >> >> and that history implies that the web has the first 2 solidly covered. > There is one big missing, not solved yet: Integration of 1 and 2 to get > value from it, so that 3 and 4 can be produced. Could you elaborate a bit? Best regards, Ed -- To unsubscribe from this list, just send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject.
